Contrarian 2A scenario: M16s, and only M16s, for everyone?

[MatthewVanitas]

Let me posit an unlikely scenario: the Supreme Court finds an accommodation between the disparate factions, and with strict constructionalism concludes that "arms" does indeed entail and protect the primary military arm in common usage, but only that. Accordingly, they decree that there will no longer be any allowed production of post-1898 long arms, and no new production cartridge handguns, but every adult in America gets a free M16 stripped lower receiver on demand to do with as they will, and the free market is allowed to produce whatever uppers and accessories (in any chambering) they like that interfaces with that receiver. No limitations on barrel length, suppressors are an off-the-shelf accessory, (EDIT) any ammunition provided it's not an explosive shell(/edit), and you're free to install full-auto components.

The lowers would be serialized, but it would be strigently forbidden to maintain any digital record of them. When you get your free receiver, the ycopy your info down on paper and put it in a tamper-evident envelope which is guarded by a neutral non-government pro-gun archival body, something like the NRA. So if law enforcement can visually prove that they possess a receiver, or have imagery of it being used in a crime where the serial is legible, they can file a request to have the archive open only that single envelope to reveal who it was issued to, to at least know where to start inquiries. Any attempt to pull spans of serial numbers, or a sudden uptick in pulls, would trigger a media and internet public alert of unusual LEO activity. The archive would be empowered to incinerate the records in the event of national emergency. Transfers of the M16 lowers would not be explicitly illegal, though sales for profit would be, but if your gun turned up at a crime it'd raise a lot of questions as to why you gave yours away instead of telling the other guy to get his own free one. Let's say for kicks you're allowed two free receivers, so you're not unarmed if one breaks or is lost, and can do a little less swapping uppers or modifying lowers.

The fine details are kinda ancillary, but for the sake of argument we'll say that existing non-M16 rifles/shotguns/handguns could still be sold but only through FFL. And for kicks we'll say that earlier military firearms would be treated as M16s, including a free government lottery to give away any remaining stocks of mothballed or repatriated M14s, M1s, Springfields, etc. And should the US adopt a new service rifle, that would become the new giveaway lower receiver, but the aftermarket still allowed to produce parts for earlier service rifles. The accessories market, by the way, can produce any kind of upper/stocks/etc they care to, and the serial will be put above the trigger so that the magwell can be legally modified for longer cartridges/shotshells.

Open carry would be legal on public property anywhere nationwide, and on any private property which is not Texas-style posted against it by the owner. The judicial finding would entail an extremely-strong, blatantly clear declaration that the decision is in strict accordance with the Constitution and that any limitations on M16/service-rifle ownership would be a grievous infringement.


Sure, on many levels that would be a kick in the junk for hobbyists who enjoy shooting a Winchester 70 or shooting clays with a double, but that's not what the Second Amendment is about, now is it? It's about having an armed citizenry able to resist oppression, internal or external.

If somehow this unlikely scenario were to come to pass, would you consider it completely unacceptable, or a strict-but-fair recognition of the true purpose of the Second Amendment? Do you consider it 80% tenable but there are a few redlines that would have to be modified for you to find it acceptable? Again, not asking if you find it acceptable as a hobbyist, but is it acceptable on a political level as an armed American?

 

[kwguy]

Does this mean we get to keep one of these in our backyards as well then?

 

[shotgunjoel]

I'd imagine a Swiss-style system arising from a situation like that where a national militia/reserve force would include most citizens and service rifles would be issued. Under the Swiss-ish system other types of firearms would be allowed, but not Constitutionally protected. Other types of guns would almost certainly still be legal to different amounts, just as guns are legal in other countries to different amounts. Besides, the U.S. govt. could never afford to confiscate all guns in America. Aside from the gigantic manpower pool required the 5th Amendment states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Therefore the govt. would have to pay fair value for anything that they'd confiscate.

 

[kwguy]

duplicate post

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Does this mean we get to keep one of these in our backyards as well then?

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.BvhW...FFMKw&pid=15.1

I'm not an expert, but hasn't there been some past SC argument that the protections apply to the individual infantry arm of common use?


Yeah, I know, some Colonial-era rich guys owned private cannon and things like this, but that doesn't seem to have ever gotten traction in SC findings, so for simplicity of this scenario, that we're basing it around M16s. People that want cannons will just have to deal with whatever other regulations.

If you can manage to get enough friends to loan you their spare lower, feel free to mount high-caliber M16s wherever on your whirlybird that you care to.

EDIT: clarifying OP to note that like currently your ammo has to be non-explosive, so no rigging up an M16 to fire 155mm HE shells.

 

[barnbwt]

You do realize, that by only allowing M16 lowers, you can still realize practically every long arm format imaginable with minor accommodation? Guy on weaponsguild just put an MP5 upper on an AR lower for cost and ergonomics improvements.

As far as handguns, SC-rewed-us would have to reverse themselves quite absolutely with regards to Heller and McDonald, and that's the final seal they don't seem to feel like breaking just yet due to what little pride they have remaining over there. If the court started reversing themselves (especially on tenuous grounds), they would quite literally have no power left whatsoever to oppose law.

Granted, we've now discovered that any law worth in excess of 1 trillion dollars is utterly beyond their reach (and just ponder how many federal departments are worth that much at this point), so a +1 trillion dollar gun buyback would probably be upheld if it got through the next supermajority congress. They'd call it a tax instead of a 'taking,' or something, and get around that just compensation ruling they just wrote.

TCB

 

[MatthewVanitas]

You do realize, that by only allowing M16 lowers, you can still realize practically every long arm format imaginable with minor accommodation?

Anybody hear me complaining?


And a lot of handgun variants, just not in the most compact of formats. But again, concealable firearms isn't inherently a 2A thing, and not having ready availability of pocketable handguns would (in this unlikely fictional pondering) assuage some of the concerns about public safety.

As many of us here have pointed out, statistically "assault weapons" are used in very few crimes indeed.

They'd call it a tax instead of a 'taking,' or something

Probably best not to let current non-gun events intrude too much into this discussion. We're all here because we (largely) have similar opinions about guns, not necessarily so about public health care, gay marriage, the Confederate flag, or lethal injection. So probably sticking to gun stuff would help avoid unproductive derails.

 

[barnbwt]

"I'm not an expert, but hasn't there been some past SC argument that the protections apply to the individual infantry arm of common use?"

Yeah, that was Miller, quite possibly one of the most badly-conceived and most impactful rulings about firearms there is. Pretty much the Dred Scott of gun law, seeing as the feds never had any intention, whatsoever, of letting the current military arms of the day become easily available to the public (hence the tax of thousands of dollars in modern currency)

"Probably best not to let current non-gun events intrude too much "
Eh, see my sig-line. The bridge-cross is about the same.

TCB

 

[hso]

If somehow this unlikely scenario were to come to pass,

Matthew,

You know as well as anyone the scenario goes so far beyond unlikely to be the premise for the property master of a grade Z SciFi movie.

 

[barnbwt]

"grade Z SciFi movie."

<LaFontaine]> "In a world, where the government gives out M16s for no reason...nothing particularly interesting happens while people go about their lives"

Grade Z is right

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single fictional movie or book plot involving widely armed populations, that doesn't involve wildly unrealistic irrational/sociopathic behavior from the users. Case in point; westerns, wherein rates of violent crime and sociopathy are hugely exaggerated for dramatic effect.

In reality, I suspect drunkenness was the real cause for the Wild West more than anything, owing to the lack of potable water, but even the violent actions of the drunks are much amplified in fiction. Guns are more commonly held in many places than ever were present in Harding's day, to far less interesting daily headlines.

TCB

 

[redbullitt]

I'd be mad they took my guide gun and gave me a stripped lower lol.

 

[Swing]

Yeah, that was Miller, quite possibly one of the most badly-conceived and most impactful rulings about firearms there is. Pretty much the Dred Scott of gun law, seeing as the feds never had any intention, whatsoever, of letting the current military arms of the day become easily available to the public (hence the tax of thousands of dollars in modern currency)

Indeed. Miller's shotgun wasn't military enough, so it was NFA. The Striker shotguns, Streetweepers, etc., were too military for civilians, so they are NFA. Separated by decades and with legislation passed between the two points, I grant, but it does illustrate the bizarre-o world of "it has to be for a militia", oh, and only "sporting purposes" too so no military hardware or anything that vaguely looks like said.

You know as well as anyone the scenario goes so far beyond unlikely to be the premise for the property master of a grade Z SciFi movie.

^. This.

 

[Robert]

See post #9. This is just too far out in left field.